Woman Who Failed To Disclose Earlier Suit Finding Her An Encroacher Loses MP HC Demarcation Challenge, Must Pay ₹10,000 Costs

The petitioner challenged the Tehsildar’s order affirming a demarcation report under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the SDO’s appellate order upholding it. She alleged that the demarcation had been conducted behind her back and that the revenue authorities acted while a civil appeal concerning the land was pending

Respondent No. 5 objected that the petitioner had omitted to disclose her earlier civil suit for declaration and injunction over the same property, which had been dismissed with costs in 2011. In that suit, the court had relied on a commissioner’s demarcation report and found the petitioner to be in illegal possession of land

The petitioner argued that the earlier judgment had been mentioned in the later trial-court judgment and therefore was not suppressed

Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, provides for demarcation; the petitioner’s challenge to the appellate decision was brought under Section 129(5)

The Court relied on Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531, and K. Jayaram v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815, for the principles that litigants must disclose material facts and relevant past or pending proceedings, and that a mere passing reference to an omitted matter does not necessarily satisfy that obligation

It also considered Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120, which clarifies that suppression must concern a material fact and that its effect on discretionary relief depends on the circumstances

A litigant who suppresses material facts may be denied discretionary relief under Article 226

The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed that her earlier suit concerning the same property had been dismissed with costs, or that the court in that suit had found her to be an encroacher based on a commissioner’s demarcation report

It rejected the explanation that a reference to the earlier judgment in a later judgment was sufficient disclosure, applying the principle that the litigant—not the court—must clearly bring material facts to the court’s attention

On that basis, the Court held that the petitioner had not approached it with clean hands and declined to grant discretionary relief

The Court did not separately determine the merits of the petitioner’s objections to the demarcation or the effect of the pending civil appeal

and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the specified account of the M.P. High Court Bar Association within ten working days